Merkel’s Way Out

It was vintage Angela Merkel. No bravado. No recriminations. No emotional outpouring.

The day after her Christian Democrats lost 10 percent of the vote, but still managed to remain the biggest party in the state of Hesse, Merkel took to the podium in the CDU’s headquarters in Berlin. In her matter of fact style she made two announcements.

“Firstly, at the next CDU party congress in December in Hamburg, I will not put myself forward again as candidate for the CDU chair,” she said. “Secondly, this fourth term is my last as German chancellor. At the federal election in 2021, I will not stand,” she added. Thus began the dignified ebbing of the Merkel era.

The race has already begun for the party leadership that will be settled in December. Whoever manages to win will almost certainly run for chancellor. In any case, it’s going to be a contest and probably an unseemly one at that, which just may give Merkel the breathing space needed to complete her legacy. That legacy is about Europe’s future direction.

Since becoming chancellor in November 2005, Merkel steered Germany and Europe through several crises. From the global financial crash of 2008 followed by the near collapse of the eurozone, she and especially the former finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble imposed a policy of austerity on the heavily-indebted eurozone countries.

Such controversial measures were welcomed in Ireland but deeply resented in Greece where the public sector and pensions were slashed. Heaven knows how the German government and the European Commission are going to deal with the populist and Euroskeptic Italian coalition, which seems hell-bent on breaking all the rules that underpin the stability and functioning of the euro.

Even though Berlin, so far, steered Europe through the euro crisis, Merkel did not use the time to shape the EU’s direction. It’s not just because she didn’t respond to President Emmanuel Macron’s speech he made at the Sorbonne in September 2017, a silence that was disappointing in itself. In many European capitals, however, Merkel’s attitude toward Macron’s ambitious plans for a more integrated EU have been welcomed, especially by smaller countries.

With Brexit looming, the idea of a Franco-German engine based on Macron’s policies has created a backlash among the northern member states. Quietly, Merkel is on their side. Unless the German coalition fails to see out its term, which cannot be ruled out, Berlin’s policy toward the EU’s future direction will be cautious.

That is already one of Merkel’s legacies. As chancellor she steered Germany away from its traditional communautaire stance to intergovernmental policies in which the member states held sway. On her watch, national interests increasingly prevailed.

Yet in her 2015 decision to open the borders to one million refugees fleeing the war in Syria and Iraq, Merkel belatedly realized the importance of the European Commission in trying to forge a common refugee and asylum policy that has eluded the bloc for at least two decades.

Both Merkel and Brussels failed, for many reasons, to convince the other 27 member states to uphold international law, to share the burden of taking in refugees, and to act humanely and decently. Merkel’s legacy is that she did all four, only to be hammered during the 2017 federal elections and now the two recent regional elections in Bavaria and Hesse.

Her coalition of conservatives and Social Democrats did little to support her policies. Indeed, the constant sniping by Horst Seehofer, the interior minister who over the past several months did his best to unseat Merkel, played into the hands of the far-right, anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD). Seehofer, himself weakened as leader of the Christian Social Union party in Bavaria, has now gotten what he wanted with Merkel’s decisions. But it’s a Pyrrhic victory. His ranting against Merkel and her refugee policy damaged the coalition.

No doubt there’ll be some European leaders, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán for one, who may be glad to see the end of the Merkel era. Not only did he and other leaders oppose Merkel’s refugee policy. They also opposed the EU sanctions on Russia but actually never blocked them from being rolled over.

The sanctions were another principled stance by Merkel. She managed to rally round all the member states to slap sanctions on Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and its invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2014, plus the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17). And inside Germany, she changed the political discourse about Russia, no longer making “Ostpolitik,” which was essentially a rapprochement with Russia, the defining focus of relations between Berlin and Moscow.

In her remaining years as chancellor, Merkel will hardly give up the dossiers that she has accumulated since 2005, be they Russia or Ukraine, Europe, China, digitization (belatedly), or the United States.

Indeed, managing these last two dossiers are arguably Merkel’s biggest challenges as she sees out her term. They are about Germany acting strategically to cope with the immense changes affecting leadership, communications, and security. So far the “Merkel Way” has been to shun strategy. So far.

In the Trump-Bolton era, "Ostpolitik" is the only way forward. If Mrs. Merkel refuses to think strategically, what about her partners in the SPD? Have they become mere bystanders to history? Why shouldn't the center-left just remove itself from the coalition, if Merkel is just biding her time? There must be some basis to the coalition other than just fear of an election. If the CDU won't embrace "Ostpolitik" as a coalition partner, than the SPD must, on its own, rejuvenate the concept in opposition to both the CDU and the Trump administration. After all Trump is probably the most loathed US president in the modern history of Germany. Why not a new definition of "Ostpolitik" in opposition to Trump-Bolton and their reckless policy of confrontation with Russia. Someone in Europe must begin to stand up solidly against the new American administration. Somebody (or some political party) in Europe must envision the strategic contours of better relations with Russia. The US Democratic Party has no policy at all. However, the Democratic Party voters will follow the lead of anyone in Europe who is against Trump and is moving in the direction of peace. Merkel's legacy has yet to be written. If she doesn't begin to think strategically and out-of-the-box, she will be very easily be forgotten as a mere status-quo manager. Could this also be the same fate of the SPD?

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

Paul Flaherty

October 30, 20184:13 pm

Two points about the following two paragraphs in the centre of this article:
That is already one of Merkel’s legacies. As chancellor she steered Germany away from its traditional communautaire stance to intergovernmental policies in which the member states held sway. On her watch, national interests increasingly prevailed.
Yet in her 2015 decision to open the borders to one million refugees fleeing the war in Syria and Iraq, Merkel belatedly realized the importance of the European Commission in trying to forge a common refugee and asylum policy that has eluded the bloc for at least two decades.
Merkel’s move to a more intergovernmental approach ahs been very recent. Had she adopted the approach earlier she would have responded to Cameron in a very different way – and might have decidedly changed the Brexit debate and vote in the UK.
Another way of looking at Merkel’s decision to open the borders to Syrian refugees: Merkel effectively emptied Syria of its educated middle class and provided a secure basis for future German prosperity by filling the gaps in a demographic portfolio which would have meant a Germany finding it increasingly difficult to support an aging population. The European bit came only when there were problems over the New Year – little of which was caused by Syrian immigrants

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

Stevemid

October 31, 20182:59 pm

Paul Flaherty says: "Merkel effectively emptied Syria of its educated middle class and provided a secure basis for future German prosperity by filling the gaps in a demographic portfolio which would have meant a Germany finding it increasingly difficult to support an aging population."
I have long thought the same thing. In an era defined by ageing workforces, Merkel took the bold step of injecting a million fertile refugees into Germany's future. If they mostly turn out to be educated, hard working and willing to assimilate, they will be Germany's economic engine of the future.

Merkel used to be informal leader of EU as long as she did not make a step which exacerbated internal contradictions not only in EU, but also in the whole brave new world of globalization. She opened German borders for one million of immigrants in the moment when anyone else would to this. She also initiated a fair share policy of distribution of quota, which almost nobody wants. What she did in terms of political economy is further advancing the globalization process in terms of opening borders, as, for example, Obama and Hillary Clinton, respectively, wanted to as well. These tendencies soon were faced with ultra-conservative and nationalistic backlash at home and abroad. The pathetic globalization, thus, did not last more than several decades. In a moment when only Germany and, perhaps, a few other countries in the West might have been successful with expansion of cheap products from China, Brasil, India or Russia to international market, most part of the West must retreat from the game (Brexit, Trump, Central Europe..., i.e., all who produce quality, but too expensive products and re-introduce the agenda of human rights as an excuse for withdrawal, and, of course, reintroduce arms race and maybe chains of new wars instead of the free trade as the essential element of the mythological liberalism.
Granted, Merkel cannot solve such deep contradictions in the system, as she is not a Leninist or Keynesian. She is apologist of the market integration of economy and society, yet only if it is convenient to German extreme nationalists (or "komm, komm - geh, geh" policy) and also, please, without deeper social or cultural integration (remember her invective addressed to impossible multiculturalism in Germany, for which he blamed only one party, namely Turkish immigrants.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

dazed and confused

November 03, 20187:25 am

I don't understand how a slap on the wrist for the invasion of Crimea and attack upon the Ukraine comprise a posture against Russian imperialism. Assuming for the sake of argument it had more content and impact than described in popular media, the Russians are still there and still problematic, no? More importantly, under Merkel the German government actually increased the dependency upon Russia, for example by becoming more dependent upon Russian oil, (the pipeline.) The article also understates the German economic imperialism imposed upon for example; Greece, Italy and Portugal. Even the Dutch population wants out, and Denmark is going sour too. The politicians there will not allow a referendum because the EU leadership can predict the level of dis-engagement desired. I fail to understand the conditions which would make Ireland an EU fan, but without research I would guess they receive a large financial subsidy for participation. The Irish posture I also guess will change when they become a debtor state to the EU banking cartel. A propos of the Merkel support of the EU, there is no way to stop nationalism because it is hard-wired into humanity. Pan-anything is a fiction because it is unsustainable over time. Cells split, and so do groups of humans. Statis is not a natural state. Governments and globalist oligarchs should learn some science which impacts their decisions and planning. A CIA Director made the point during the cold war --nationalism is vastly underestimated by those who believe in collective governance of multi-cultural groups, (e.g., Russian domination of Eastern Europe at that time. ) For some reason which is baffling to me, media and governments never discuss the Anthropological emphasis on preservation of culture. If you do not belong to a common culture shared by your community members, you will suffer psychological anxiety because you will not have enough self-reinforcement of your beliefs. These truisms are so fundamental to human life it is a wonder that globalists consistently ignore them. We are herd animals, but tribal herd animals. Why are the EU proponents banging their heads against stone walls? If I were an Italian, I would be a nationalist too. Who would want to be a non-Italian but instead some sort of amorphous "European" being governed by un-elected bureaucrats in Belgium? Merkel's insistence upon pan-Eurpoeanism and defense of Franco-German banking imperialism will be over-looked, because for decades the media has been complementary. Why I am not sure.

Post your comments 2500 character limit. No links or markup permitted. Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Screen names appear with your comment.

Screen Name

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article.

Email Address

Characters Used 0

Deltadart

November 08, 20181:43 am

Most unsavory and unstrategic (off the top cuff) comments on a visionary leader, who has upheld humanitarian causes stolidly and with equinamity. The short sighted nationalistic hard right policies of a few EU countries, aimed more at political gains rather than EU unity or development are to the contrary unstrategic!

Comment Policy

Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.